[OriLife × TonFarm] Identifying 180 Million Durians Without Physical Labels
159 DReps voted · 68 with a rationale · 3 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- No10.4M ₳Rationale
So far this year Cardano governance is approved
137 million ADA expenditure + 116 million ADA IOG proposals, so far
That is already 253 million ADA expenditure. I will be voting NO/ABSTAIN on all other proposals because imo the yearly spend should be between maximum 200-250 million.
- NoChanged9.2M ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes2mo agoSuperseded
- No8.8M ₳Rationale
私はこの提案に反対します。ベトナムのドリアン産業におけるトレーサビリティ課題や、実世界での活用を目指す取り組みについては理解しています。一方で、本提案の主な受益者はベトナムのドリアン産業や提案者自身の事業であるように見えます。提案内では新規ユーザー数やオンチェーン活動量などが示されていますが、それらは目標値であり、Cardanoエコシステム全体にどの程度の継続的な価値をもたらすのかは不確実です。また、Cardanoが活用されることは理解していますが、その価値がTreasuryからの2,400,000 ADAの資金提供に見合うほどエコシステム全体へ還元されるのかについては疑問があります。そのため、本提案には一定の社会的意義を認めつつも、費用対効果およびCardanoエコシステム全体への価値という観点から、私は反対します。\n\nI vote No on this proposal. I understand the traceability challenges facing Vietnam’s durian industry and the effort to drive real-world adoption through this initiative. However, the primary beneficiaries of this proposal appear to be the Vietnamese durian industry and the proposers’ own business activities. While the proposal presents targets for new users and on-chain activity, these remain projections, and it is unclear how much sustained value will ultimately be created for the broader Cardano ecosystem. I also recognize that Cardano is being utilized within the proposed solution, but I am not convinced that the value returned to the ecosystem is sufficient to justify a Treasury withdrawal of 2,400,000 ADA. Therefore, while I acknowledge the social value of the project, I vote No based on concerns regarding cost-effectiveness and the overall value delivered to the Cardano ecosystem.
- No8.1M ₳No rationale
- No7.6M ₳Rationale
Voting NO to this proposal
This is actually an interesting “real-world adoption” proposal that identified a concrete export problem, in a real market. I actually know about the difficulties that Vietnam and other exporters face when trying to break into the Chinese market and this is actually a real issue. The strict quality monitoring - traceability issue is real. Clearly, there is also abuse in the form of fraud and compliance problems.
One key concern for me is the Bio-ID system reliability at scale - it is used for telling durian fruits - one from another. Bio-ID is OriLife’s idea that the product itself becomes the identifier. For durian, the system claims to use the fruit’s rind surface micro-pattern as a biological fingerprint.
The document also says that implementation details, proprietary biometric algorithms and internal engineering specifications are excluded. Essentially, we do not get the information needed to judge Bio-ID scientifically. I mean - this is a bit of a wild bet on a system that has many chances to fail. Identifying one durian in a demo is not the same as identifying 180 million fruits per season under messy field conditions: dirt, lighting, rain, handling damage, ripening changes, camera differences, etc...
Claims of 100% precision / zero false positives can depend on the testing or internal testing environment.
Bio-ID is the heart of the proposal. Even if it were fail safe, Bio-ID would make identity inseparable from the fruit after registration, but it does not by itself prove that the first registration happened honestly, at the right farm, by the right person, under the right growing-area code. Essentially, this is really outside of the scope of Cardano Treasury funding, for me personally.My view is usually if this Cardano integration is of significant commercial interest for durian exporters and it does make sense for Vietnam due to the huge Chinese market, it makes sense for Vietnamese players to invest and use Cardano do achieve this. It does not make sense for Cardano Treasury to allocate funds to this project.
- Abstain7.2M ₳No rationale
- No5.9M ₳Rationale
I am voting No.
I appreciate the direction and the potential long-term value here, but I’m not convinced this is where treasury capital should be prioritized right now relative to other ecosystem needs and competing asks. At this funding size, I need stronger conviction around immediate ecosystem leverage and timing.
- No5.8M ₳Rationale
추후 카탈리스트를 통해 지원하는게 더 적합한 제안서로 판단됨
- Abstain5.4M ₳No rationale
- Abstain5.3M ₳No rationale
- No5.3M ₳Rationale
STORM Partners votes NO on OriLife × TonFarm.
We appreciate the real-world adoption angle, but we do not see enough strategic priority or traction to justify this proposal under the current NCL constraints. - No4.8M ₳No rationale
- No4.7M ₳Rationale
Too country specific and insufficient indication of how it could be expanded beyond Vietnam.
- No4.6M ₳No rationale
- No4.4M ₳Rationale
This proposal is better suited for Project Catalyst rather than a direct treasury withdrawal through a governance action. Having supported all IOG proposals, I will now apply strict scrutiny to any initiatives that do not focus on core Cardano infrastructure.
- No4.1M ₳Rationale
[Portuguese]
Optamos por votar "NÃO" nesta ação de governança "[OriLife × TonFarm] Identifying 180 Million Durians Without Physical Labels" (gov_action19avrmrhm0gqa4qwlgvh4vxj6nwe02ay42h828cva2zt6n0asddfqqtgph5d), pois, embora a proposta apresente uma tese relevante de adoção no mundo real, envolvendo rastreabilidade agrícola, identidades descentralizadas (DIDs), NFTs dinâmicos e integração com a cadeia de suprimentos do durião no Vietnã, entendemos que o pedido de ₳2.400.000 ainda não está suficientemente justificado para uma retirada do Tesouro neste momento. A proposta combina entregas obrigatórias com módulos opcionais e depende de premissas ambiciosas relacionadas à adoção em larga escala, avanços regulatórios locais e crescimento da atividade on-chain. Embora as metas apresentadas — como a identificação de 180 milhões de frutas, 24 mil usuários e entre 1 e 1,2 milhão de eventos on-chain por ano — sejam expressivas, elas ainda são descritas como objetivos de capacidade e projeções de crescimento, e não como demanda contratada ou utilização comprovada em produção em escala. Nosso voto "NÃO" não representa uma rejeição ao problema que a proposta busca resolver nem ao potencial da solução apresentada. Pelo contrário, reconhecemos que iniciativas de rastreabilidade e identidade digital podem contribuir para ampliar casos de uso da Cardano em mercados reais. No entanto, avaliamos que a proposta ainda apresenta riscos relevantes de execução, validação tecnológica, dependência de parceiros locais, governança dos mecanismos de escrow, comprovação de retorno para o ecossistema Cardano e conversão de projetos-piloto em adoção sustentável. Além disso, parte do valor prometido para o ecossistema — incluindo possíveis integrações governamentais, expansão via SDK e utilização de tecnologias como Midnight — é apresentada como uma possibilidade futura, condicionada ao desenvolvimento de fatores externos e à evolução do próprio ecossistema. Por esse motivo, entendemos que a proposta deveria retornar com evidências adicionais de demanda vinculante, validação independente da tecnologia Bio-ID/VeData, compromissos comerciais ou institucionais mais concretos e uma estratégia mais conservadora de liberação de recursos antes de receber uma alocação dessa magnitude.
[English]
We chose to vote "NO" on this governance action "[OriLife × TonFarm] Identifying 180 Million Durians Without Physical Labels" (gov_action19avrmrhm0gqa4qwlgvh4vxj6nwe02ay42h828cva2zt6n0asddfqqtgph5d), because although the proposal presents a compelling real-world adoption thesis involving agricultural traceability, decentralized identities (DIDs), dynamic NFTs, and integration with Vietnam’s durian supply chain, we believe that the requested ₳2.4 million treasury allocation is not yet sufficiently justified. The proposal combines mandatory deliverables with optional modules and relies on ambitious assumptions regarding large-scale adoption, local regulatory developments, and projected on-chain activity. While the stated targets — including 180 million identified fruits, 24,000 users, and between 1 and 1.2 million on-chain events per year — are impressive, they are currently presented as capacity goals and growth projections rather than contracted demand or proven large-scale production usage. Our "NO" vote should not be interpreted as a rejection of the problem being addressed or the potential value of the proposed solution. On the contrary, we recognize that traceability and digital identity initiatives can help expand Cardano’s real-world use cases. However, we believe the proposal still carries significant risks related to execution, technological validation, dependence on local partners, escrow governance, demonstration of return on investment for the Cardano ecosystem, and the conversion of pilot projects into sustainable adoption. Furthermore, part of the value proposition for the ecosystem — including potential government adoption, SDK-driven expansion, and future use of technologies such as Midnight — is presented as a future possibility rather than an already established outcome. For these reasons, we believe the proposal should return with additional evidence of binding demand, independent validation of the Bio-ID/VeData technology, clearer commercial or institutional commitments, and a more conservative funding release strategy before receiving a treasury allocation of this magnitude. - No3.8M ₳Rationale
This should be a risk capital funded business.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
Interesting idea, but this should clearly be a business and funded with risk capital. If the entities were asking for partial support, perhaps 20% with 80% backed by normal risk capital, and it was structured as a loan from the treasury, then I would have given it more consideration. As it is, this is an easy no, this should not be paid for with public funds.
- NoRevoted2.8M ₳Rationale
Will be voting NO for this proposal due to budgetary constraints on the NCL. I respect the initiative to push outside of Cardano and hope that the team still strives to put this on-chain.
Earlier votes
No1mo agoSuperseded
I really like that this proposal pushes outside of Cardano and accomplishes a real life usecase. I do believe initiatives like this one are important to support and fund. Due to budgetary restrictions, this proposal did not make the cut for my list of funded proposals. I wish the team the best of luck pushing towards production.
- Abstain2.6M ₳Rationale
私は本提案をAbstainとします。OriLife × TonFarmは、Cardanoを農業トレーサビリティ、DID、CIP-68 NFT、eUTXOバッチ処理に活用する実需提案として大きな可能性があります。QRラベルではなく果実そのものをBio-ID化する発想も評価できます。一方で、OriLifeは本来Cardanoの仕組みを利用して事業を行う顧客側の立場でもあります。そのため、Treasuryが初期展開費用を支援するなら、Cardano Treasuryへの明確な還元設計が必要です。提案には20% Treasury fee mechanismの記載がありますが、その対象、期間、自動執行性、監査可能性、他作物展開時の適用範囲が不明確です。実需採用の価値は認めつつ、資金還元設計が十分に明確化されていないため、今回はAbstainとします。
I vote Abstain on this proposal. OriLife × TonFarm has meaningful potential as a real-world adoption case for Cardano, using agricultural traceability, DIDs, CIP-68 NFTs, and eUTXO batching. I also value the idea of using Bio-ID instead of detachable QR labels. However, OriLife is also essentially a customer using Cardano infrastructure for its own business. If the Treasury funds its initial deployment, there must be a clear return mechanism to the Cardano Treasury. The proposal mentions a 20% Treasury fee mechanism, but the scope, duration, enforceability, auditability, and applicability to future crop expansion are not sufficiently clear. I recognize the adoption value, but because the financial return design remains ambiguous, I abstain.
- No2.5M ₳No rationale
- No2.5M ₳Rationale
im out
- No2.3M ₳No rationale
- No2.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.1M ₳No rationale
- No2.1M ₳No rationale
- No2.1M ₳Rationale
I am voting NO on this proposal.
I recognise the ambition behind OriLife × TonFarm and I support the broader goal of bringing real-world adoption, supply-chain traceability, identity, and agricultural use cases to Cardano. The proposal is interesting, and I appreciate the work already done by the team, including the existing proof of concept, field deployment, and the attempt to structure the funding through milestones and escrow.
However, I do not believe this proposal currently meets the burden of proof required for a 2.4m ADA treasury withdrawal.
My concern is not with the sector or the idea itself. My concern is whether Cardano’s treasury should fund a large-scale vertical commercial deployment where the ecosystem-wide return remains uncertain. The projected adoption numbers are substantial, but they still appear highly aspirational without enough hard evidence of binding customer commitments, guaranteed transaction volume, or a clear path for the Cardano treasury and wider ecosystem to benefit proportionately from the investment.
I would be more comfortable supporting a smaller, staged proposal that proves real mainnet usage, demonstrates repeatable demand, and establishes clearer treasury-aligned economics before requesting funding at this scale. For commercial deployments, I believe the treasury should increasingly expect stronger repayment, revenue-sharing, or ecosystem-value mechanisms, especially where the funded infrastructure may directly benefit a private or semi-commercial operator.
This may become a strong Cardano real-world adoption case in the future, but at this stage I do not believe the risk/reward profile justifies the requested treasury spend.
For these reasons, I am voting NO.
- No2M ₳No rationale
- No2M ₳No rationale
- No1.9M ₳No rationale
- No1.8M ₳Rationale
Although this is an innovative and meticulously prepared RWA (Real-World Appliance) application proposal utilizing Cardano's unique Bio-ID technology, it is not suitable for direct Treasury funding.
The proposal is essentially a commercialization of a private product serving a specific niche market (durian exports from Dak Lak, Vietnam) rather than a shared public infrastructure (Public Goods) for the entire ecosystem. Since traceability is mandated by law (Circular 11 and GACC China) for the multi-billion dollar export industry, businesses and cooperatives participating in the supply chain have a strong financial incentive to pay for the service themselves.
Furthermore, the project offers very little direct economic value to the Cardano ecosystem (a closed MAGIC credit ecosystem with extremely low L1 transaction fees), while the Treasury bears all the initial risk. Instead of seeking direct funding from the Treasury through on-chain governance voting, the project should seek more suitable funding sources from Project Catalyst, the venture capital firm Draper Orion Fund (specializing in RWAs), or private equity funds.
- No1.8M ₳Rationale
This proposal is better suited to Catalyst, the Orion Fund, or other sources of external funding rather than the Cardano treasury.
- No1.7M ₳Rationale
Private commercial venture in a single crop, not Cardano infrastructure or a public good. Heavily-funded predecessors (IBM Food Trust, TE-FOOD, VeChain) failed at the same problem
- No1.7M ₳No rationale
- No1.7M ₳No rationale
- No1.6M ₳No rationale
- No1.6M ₳Rationale
There is no room for these kind of proposals atm.
- No1.6M ₳No rationale
- No1.5M ₳No rationale
- No1.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.4M ₳No rationale
- No1.4M ₳No rationale
- No1.3M ₳No rationale
- No1.2M ₳No rationale
- No1.1M ₳No rationale
- No1.1M ₳Rationale
Having read the proposal I get the uncomfortable feeling that **we're looking at the treasury paying for a country-specific export-compliance rollout where the primary beneficiaries are farms, exporters and the project alliance, while Cardano receives a comparatively thin value-capture story. **The proposal’s own rationale admits fee payback is weak and reframes returns as locked ADA, DIDs, transaction activity and reputational upside. Nice, but I do not treat them as hard commercial repayment.
If Vietnam’s law and China’s GACC pressure create non-discretionary demand, then exporters, cooperatives, provincial authorities, insurers, buyers or private investors should have strong incentives to fund this deployment. The better alternative is a smaller Cardano grant for open-source standards, SDKs, audits, interoperability and reference infrastructure, combined with matching capital from the commercial beneficiaries. Nuff said. Next.
- No955.7K ₳Rationale
Public funds should remain strictly focused on foundational network engineering (like Ouroboros Leios or Plutus upgrades) rather than niche consumer application pilots.
- No931.8K ₳No rationale
- No861.5K ₳No rationale
- No825.2K ₳Rationale
While the OriLife alliance presents a highly sophisticated technical framework and a compelling real-world adoption case, the allocation of 2,400,000 ADA from the global treasury for a regionally isolated agricultural initiative presents a substantial opportunity cost. Global treasury funds must be prioritized for core infrastructure, foundational tooling, or ecosystem frameworks that offer equitable, scalable utility across all global communities. Funding localized commercial deployments at this scale sets a precedent that risks depleting collective reserves without guaranteeing proportional network-wide returns.
- No798.6K ₳Rationale
If OriLife's core protocol components — Bio-ID fingerprinting, VeData batching, PhoenixKey DID — were proposed as fully open-source, patent-free public infrastructure with no single-entity commercial control, there would be a meaningful public goods case to evaluate. As structured, the appropriate path is private investment, a Vietnamese government procurement contract, or a Project Catalyst grant at a scale commensurate with ecosystem-wide benefit rather than a direct treasury withdrawal.